Dragonlady
Designing Woman
- Dec 1, 2012
- 53,058
- 31,116
We fund a government to avoid being run by the other two. It is the lesserist (yep, made up word) of the three evils.
I think the word you need is "least" of the three evils.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We fund a government to avoid being run by the other two. It is the lesserist (yep, made up word) of the three evils.
We fund a government to avoid being run by the other two. It is the lesserist (yep, made up word) of the three evils.
I think the word you need is "least" of the three evils.
Well, I know this. In Charleston, SC, we have only one option for electricity: SCE&G, a privately owned company. The Post and Courrier this week reported SCE&G made record profits, and sent huge increases in dividends to it's shareholders. They ask for rate hikes every other month, and blame "Obama's green energy policies". Somehow, though, they rake in huge profits, despite "Obama policies".
Could the US government fund the operation of the power grid, in a non-profit manner, and thus allowing people to keep more money in their pockets?
What is "free money"...whether it comes from welfare, or dividends, it is still money you didn't physically work for that came at the cost of others. Just sayin'.
SCE&G has expended massive amounts of private equity in order to build, expand, monitor, service, and maintain their enterprise. Shareholders, at expense to themselves through aquisition of equtiy interests, are vested and so assume expense as well as profit. They also assume risk.
You said yourself that we are "at war for resources, overseas resources". So which is cheaper, to wage "war" overseas or to ensure the future of our own resources and power generation?
Without profit, SCE&G has no future. Without dividend distributions to shareholders, they could not attract capital. Without increases in rates, they could not cover ever-expanding expenses of operation.
Yep. All 100% true, I dont disagree. But, how does that help the thousands who are struggling to pay their bills? It doesnt. So, surely you see how the message of nationalizing certain things appeals to many?
Just like some people who are struggling with their business get outraged to hear a government employee making more........many who are struggling to pay bills get outraged to hear their power bills soared so stockholders could make a few more dollars.
We need a middle ground, but the partisan sides are fleeing farther apart.
Well, I know this. In Charleston, SC, we have only one option for electricity: SCE&G, a privately owned company. The Post and Courrier this week reported SCE&G made record profits, and sent huge increases in dividends to it's shareholders. They ask for rate hikes every other month, and blame "Obama's green energy policies". Somehow, though, they rake in huge profits, despite "Obama policies".
Could the US government fund the operation of the power grid, in a non-profit manner, and thus allowing people to keep more money in their pockets?
What is "free money"...whether it comes from welfare, or dividends, it is still money you didn't physically work for that came at the cost of others. Just sayin'.
Honestly:will you socialists that support nationalizing of USA like Venzuela
Honestly:will you socialists that support nationalizing of USA like Venzuela
1) Nothing is being nationalised
2) I've never seen any poster on this board back Venezuela
3) There are no socialists involved in US politics.
It's easier to understand current events if you stick to facts - not paranoia.
Honestly:will you socialists that support nationalizing of USA like Venzuela
There are no ‘socialists.’
Perhaps you could try something different and start a thread with some facts for a change.
Wow. You found ONE.
"Sanders he is the first person elected to Congress to identify as a socialist in six decades."
Bernie Sanders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I don't see any evidence that any of the others are socialists, do you?
Their CEO doesn't pay enough in taxes...or many of their exec's